These days, it seems like you can’t open a journal without running into six letters –  CRISPR. It’s the hottest scientific breakthrough since PCR. You swear just mentioning it in your paper adds some points of prestige to your submission. While CRISPR is already established as the Taylor Swift of science, it’s just starting to make waves in the public sphere. A recent segment about CRISPR and gene editing on the popular HBO show, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, has caused CRISPR to “go viral” in non-science arenas, attracting over 4.5 million views on YouTube.

As scientists, we are constantly bombarded with seminars on the ethics of responsible gene editing, and discussion panels of what responsible policies on the usage of this technology might look like. However, we’re leaving out one critical detail: this technology is meant to serve the public and we’ve neglected to include them in the conversation. This inattention is not due to malice on our part as scientists. Most of us want to be better science advocates, but are unsure of where to start. Often times, we find ethical or policy type-conversations uncomfortable or awkward with non-scientists.

But don’t worry, we are here to help! We have developed some tips on how to talk to anyone about CRISPR and gene editing technology, with useful advice and examples that you can share.

Tip #1: Listen to your audience, even if they know little about gene editing.

Often the public only hears about science news through movies and television shows, local and national news, or articles in magazines rather than directly from scientists. Sometimes, these outlets sensationalize science-related topics in order to increase their web traffic and generate views. While plenty of accurate information is available on the internet, there is also just as much or even more incorrect information out there in the web. Some websites put in just enough factual information to seem legitimate, but have dubious or otherwise incorrect claims littered throughout. Without being able to converse with scientists directly, the public has no way of confirming or denying reports on gene editing that they hear. Complicating this, when people have just a bit of information about a topic, the “Dunning-Kruger” effect is prominently in play — that is, when people know (or think they know) a bit about a topic (being informed without being experts), they tend to overestimate their level of knowledge.

When talking with people about CRISPR, be aware that they might think their opinion is equally valid to yours, because they perceive themselves as having almost as much knowledge as you. The best thing to do is listen to them before providing accurate information. While you might disagree or even know they are wrong due to current scientific consensus, the other person is much more likely to listen to you if you listen to them.

Tip #2: Your audience may have legitimate fears about gene editing. Engage them anyway.

When talking with others about potentially controversial issues, it’s important to remember there are usually fundamental values involved. For example, many people I’ve encountered when talking about CRISPR have expressed deep concern about “designer babies” or eventual advocacy for eugenics. While it’s easy to be dismissive of such concerns — that kind of technology/capability is likely decades away — it’s not an unfounded fear.

In the early 1900s, when genetics as a field of study was hitting its stride, some scientists and policymakers proposed eugenics as a way to “improve the human race.” The result? Forced sterilization of tens of thousands of Americans with documented mental illness. You may be tempted to think such philosophies won’t rise again — and maybe they won’t — but not talking about these concerns with the public only breeds distrust of gene editing technologies. These types of fears are exactly why scientists need to engage the public and bring them into the conversation about responsible usage of gene editing technology.

Tip #3: Focus on the facts.

Keep the conversation neutral. You might believe that CRISPR/Cas technology is paving the way for a geneticized future, but others may not share your opinion — and that’s okay!

Some people may be excited about the potential of this technology and others wary, for an extremely wide range of reasons. Regardless of your audience’s personal feelings towards the technology, you can still keep friends and family informed. That doesn’t mean swaying them to whatever you personally believe about CRISPR/Cas, but rather educating them on the facts surrounding the CRISPR/Cas gene editing technology.

Part of science advocacy involves trusting the public to come to their own conclusions. Placing your faith in the public to be able to understand complex issues helps build trust between the public and the scientific community. Expecting unquestioning belief is a surefire way to alienate your grandmother, let alone the public at-large.

Frequently Asked Questions about CRISPR/Cas gene editing technology

Q: What does CRISPR stand for?

CRISPR stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, which are DNA sequences found in bacteria that were originally from bacterial viruses called bacteriophage. The CRISPR-associated enzymes (called Cas enzymes) use this bacteriophage DNA to constantly monitor all DNA sequences inside the cell. If the Cas enzymes find DNA that matches the CRISPR sequences (as would be the case for viral infections), it triggers an immune response that destroys the viral DNA and prevents the bacteria from being infected by bacteriophage.

Q: What can CRISPR/Cas do for humans?

The CRISPR/Cas system is useful as a gene editing tool. Scientists can manipulate CRISPR/Cas to target specific DNA sequences, such as those that cause fatal genetic diseases, and cut the DNA at that specific target site. Scientists then use that cut to their advantage to have other proteins repair the DNA, putting in healthy DNA in place of the pathogenic DNA.

 Q: Why are scientists so excited about this technology?

Scientists had the tools to edit human genomes before the discovery of the CRISPR/Cas system. However, these tools were expensive and labor-intensive, and sometimes did not work for particular DNA sequences. Because the CRISPR/Cas system comes from bacteria, it is cheap and easy to produce the necessary proteins. Additionally, the CRISPR/Cas system can easily be targeted to any DNA sequence. Lastly, it seems to be fairly specific, meaning that it should only target the specific DNA sequence that scientists program it to target, and not accidentally target other DNA (these are called “off-target” effects). 

Q: Is this the end of all genetic diseases?

Scientists can currently use CRISPR/Cas gene editing technology to cure genetic diseases at the embryo stage — the single fertilized cell that will eventually become a person — with limited efficiency. CRISPR/Cas technology can only cut the DNA; scientists have to rely on already existing proteins in the human cell to repair damaged or pathological DNA, or find another way to introduce engineered proteins that will fix the DNA. This means the technology will not be widely variable for some time.

Q: Will this lead to “superhumans” or “designer babies”?

Since the technology is limited (see above question), it’s unlikely that we will be able to create “superhumans” or select for certain genetic traits for a very long time. Additionally, scientists still don’t know the genes for personality traits (there might not even be genes for such things!), and only know limited genes for physical characteristics. However, scientists are continually discussing these issues and what responsible policies surrounding use of this technology might look like in the future to prevent any widespread misuse of the technology.

Q: Is anyone regulating the use of CRISPR/Cas gene editing technology?

Usually, anything made with CRISPR/Cas gene editing technology is subject to regulation and generally (though not always) follows whatever policies are in place around genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The European Union has already begun to include CRISPR within their GMO regulatory structure.

 

-- by Kelsey Bettridge

About the Author

Kelsey is a PhD candidate in the lab of Jie Xiao at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. She graduated from Lawrence University with a degree in physics and joined the Xiao lab in order to study the kinetics of RNA polymerase in live E. coli cells. She is also interested in other aspects of transcription, including gene regulatory circuits. In her spare time, she likes to swim very long distances and bake sweets.